London Fire and Civil Defence Authority v Betty: EAT 1994

Tribunals should not be concerned to ascertain whether the illness was caused or contributed to by the employer. The question in issue is whether, in the light of the employee’s medical condition and the inquiries and procedures the employer made and used before deciding to dismiss, the dismissal was fair. To introduce questions of responsibility for illness or injury would take a Tribunal down a path which could lead to endless disputes on matters upon which they would have no special expertise. An employer has not disabled himself from fairly dismissing an employee whom he has injured. If the injury was caused by a breach of the employer’s duty to the employee then the employee will be entitled and able to recover appropriate compensation.


Morison P


[1994] IRLR 384

Cited by:

CitedDunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association EAT 8-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation
In each case, The employee sought additional damages for non-economic loss after an unfair dismissal.
Held: The Act could be compared with the Discrimination Acts . .
CitedMcAdie v Royal Bank of Scotland CA 31-Jul-2007
The claimant succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal, but now appealed against the reversal of the decision by the EAT. She had been dismissed for incapability to which she had contributed by her conduct. She had refused a move to another bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183852